Stirling Uni has spend the last couple of years researching the reasons why young people (u16) take up smoking. This was pretty wide ranging and indeed my tutor class did the surveys. Now I accept the Uni is spending public money, but Phillip Morris have just asked for the findings under the freedom of information act. Somehow I don't think it is so they can make their product LESS apealling to minors. Should they be given it?
You get a research grant for that? Seriously?
People under 16 take up smoking because they think it looks cool. Full stop. End of research project. I wouldn't have thought that hadn't crossed the mind of the Phillip Morris lot before now 😉
The Philip Morris argument is that the research was funded by the taxpayer and that, as such, it should be available to everyone under FoI. I'm a fairly staunch anti-smoker, but I think they are legally entitles to the results.
Could end up backfiring on them if the media found out what they're doing (hint hint).
I could point you in the direction of just the right person if you'd like. Email in profile.
It already is in the hands of the media.
Read this the other day on the bbc website, link here:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14744240 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14744240[/url]
The news snippet I heard had their spokeswoman saying that given the government was using the research in decision making on whether cigarettes should be sold in plain packs (rather than the branded ones we get now), they wanted to see what the research said.
What that says to me is impending expensive legal challenge. So for that reason, I'm out.
Why don't you you just send them a big file with a post-it in it saying
"they do it cos they think it looks cool'
😀
Ring 'em and ask?
08456 306060
01625 545745
A quick scour of that website would suggest that if the FOI request contravenes the DPA, then the DPA takes precedence. That might be a loophole?
Absolutely within their rights. We've had to reply to dodgier requests than this... and I have made a few myself 😉
Study data is neutral and should be openly available in an anonymised form.
Their subsequent interpretation and usage of the data may well be flawed, but that allows an opportunity to challenge them publically.
Hiding scientific data - as widely practiced by Pharmaceutical companies for trials with negative results - is never a good thing.
and FWIW I hate tobacco companies and they way they act - but they are still within their rights.
Alternatively, section 38...
provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to
• endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
• endanger the safety of any individual.
Tenuous, perhaps, but that's ultimately the reason you're opposed to releasing the info, no?
Section 41,
sets out an exemption from the right to know where the information requested was provided to the public authority in confidence.
Hmm.
Go on then Cougar, which individual?
Bingo.
)Section 43 of the Act sets out an exemption from the right to know if:
• the information requested is a trade secret, or
• [b]release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests[/b] of any person. (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity.
Should they be given it?
Do you believe in unequal rights for those that you currently happen to disagree with/find distasteful ?
Philip Morris sell a product legally and they pay tax - they should have access to the data collected and analysed at taxpayer's expense.
Whether cigarettes *should* be legal or whether taxpayer's money should be spent on such research are 2 different matters.
Go on then Cougar, which individual?
Just thinking out loud, really. I don't know if any of this would hold water legally, and I suspect that if Philip Morris wants the information badly enough then their legal team is going to get it sooner or later anyway.
Cranberry, I happen to think smoking isn't very good for you. Worse so when you are a young un. I also feel that they are perfectly happy for underage smoking to continue and indeed increase. So no I do not think they should get the info. What do you think they want it for?
Fortunately, FoI doesn't have a "except for people we find distasteful" clause.
Whose commercial interest is release of the study going to prejudice?
What that says to me is impending expensive legal challenge. So for that reason, I'm out.
Already underway in Australia fyi. Under BIT with HK (which the UK will presumably have with some relevant jurisdiction) and Constitutional obligation for compensation for state-acquired property (of which some analogue presumably exists under UK or European law).
Why don't Phillip Morris just do what Colonal Gadaffi and all manner of other dictators and dodgy pharmaceutical companies do? Just give the Uni a massive bung?
That way they could have something re-named the Phillip Morris Memorial Lecture Theatre and Cancer Ward, and they'd be able to let you know which conclusions they'd like drawing from any particular research project before you did them. Thus saving you a lot of unnecessary work 'n stuff.
Also it'd allow them access to said research, which arrived at such startling conclusions as 'kids start smoking because they think it looks cool'. Or in this case, with the new funding in place: "No! kids definitely didn't start smoking because they thought it looked cool! Not at all! Therefore there's no need to change our packaging. Apparently, though, the coolest thing in the world is brown paper. i know. Who'd have thought it eh?"
Everyone's a winner 😀
Binners, I don't work for Stirling; I teach in a school that was surveyed as part of the study.
AFAIK the study was paid for by cancer charities and not from the public purse through taxation. That should change something.
I think it would be good if Philip Morris would actually state what they were going to use it for. Somehow I don't think it is to make their product less appealing.
Perhaps the law should be two-way, so that P-M's research was available to all as well?
You're clearly unfamilier with how the system works then. Keep checking your local press for news of that 'large donation to fund academic excellence' from Phillip Morris. Won't be long now. It'll be cheaper than the legal fees
Do you believe in unequal rights for those that you currently happen to disagree with/find distasteful ?
No I dont , everything should be equal. So when the tobacco companies do full disclosure on their research then so should the university.
Hoisted up by your own petard.
Junkyard - should we give Phillip Morris the groundbreaking smoking research we did the other week?
Namely: I smoke. You pretend not too, but have the odd sneaky drag. You are much faster than me up hills, and considerably less out of breath at the top.
If we say we'll carry on our indepth research, allowing for the pie/pasty factor (I eat more, obviously), do you reckon we could get a research grant?
I'll take a wild stab in the dark here
Most 16yr olds see it as becoming a grown up.
Sadly they get hooked. For life.
I started at 16, I went out bought booze and fags as I'd see adults doing it when I was an impressionable young teen and I wanted to be an adult.
Oh I am in their Binners - obviously you would need to pay for everything
EDIT: Hold on why dont I cycle up the hills with your fags and then smoke one when I get to the top. If you get there whilst it is lit you can have it?
Afterwards we could take a lung from both of you to compare? 😈
Most 16yr olds see it as becoming a grown up.
I'd wager that most of them see it as an act of rebellion / independence rather than a sign of maturity.
If they wait until 16 to start, then frankly they're amateurs
[img] 
[/img]
We all know Hora started because he fell for this image:
[img] 
[/img]
Never leaves home without his leather chaps, he doesn't
Firstly, this request was made under FOI(S)A not FOI, the S stands for Scotland, and it is a slightly different Act, but crucially in some points.
So forget the ICO.
The SIC have ruled on this, I spent a pleasant hour once reading through it all.
To save you the time, they are well within their rights. There is no exemption to cover chancers, abhorrent as we might find tobacco companie.
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/applicationsanddecisions/Decisions/2011/201100484.asp
And yes DPA does trump FOI and FOISA but generally this kind of data can be anonimised and organisations are still obliged to release, or redact and release.
This is one of those situations where our democracy also protects people we dislike, and its a price worth paying IMHO.
A bit like the Nick Griffins right to spout endless brain-dead bile to idiots, its the price we have to pay
I think it would be good if Philip Morris would actually state what they were going to use it for.
Why should they?
when the tobacco companies do full disclosure on their research then so should the university.
Tobacco companies will reveal their information as soon as you reveal yours.
Whether the research was funded from the public purse or not, there is a more important ethical issue here in relation to the research participants. It could come down to the agreement (and promises) made to the kids who took part in the study. Sometimes people only agree to talk to you if you agree complete confidentiality (including not disclosing anonymised data).
I doubt the study would identify the kids individually in any case.
our democracy also protects people we dislike, and its a price worth paying IMHO.
Well it is not people we are protecting here is it is a commercial organisation. I am not sure you can use the noble idea of democracy to uphold the rights of a company to exploit research to get young people addicted to a substance that causes cancer to maximise their own profits. I am pretty sure this is not what it's noble ideals were meant for.
Of course they dont need to do full disclosure of their research either do they so in this democracy you are content for this company to have greater rights than we do.
We are hardly talking about say the rights of travellers to enjoy a lifestyle many disapprove of where we could discuss human rights. This is a commercial organisation wishing to maximise its profits by studying research about under-age smoking - there is nothing noble in their interest in this area.
Is it not slightly more bizarre that Philip Morris don't contract a research agency to do their own study? 😕
in this democracy you are content for this company to have greater rights than we do.
Who are "we"?
And how would Philip Morris have greater rights than us if they're allowed to make FoI requests but "dont need to do full disclosure of their research"? What research are you obliged to disclose in return for making an FoI request?
Possibly the we I refer to is the same as the us you refer to.
As the FOI applies to publicly funded /owned organisations "we " meant us- citizens,subjects etc. So we can show them our research/information but they dont need to show us theirs.
Overall I am saying that it is unfair that they have secret research whilst requesting other research that they want for less than noble reasons. Feel free to comment on the central point I am making if you wish.
Geoffs point is a good one as well.
So we can show them our research/information but they dont need to show us theirs.
The data doesn't belong to citizens or subjects. It belongs to the state. The public is not the state. You can tell that because the state often doesn't act in the public interest.
The corporate form issue is a distraction for you because your real complaint is that you think they're going to do something that you don't approve of. The purpose of the FoI request would be the same whether it is Imperial Tobacco doing the asking or Mr Benson himself doing the asking.
The secrecy issue/treated unequally is also an irrelevance. There is no obligation on anyone making requests under FoI to disclose anything to the state in order to get disclosure from the state. That doesn't make any difference whether the requester is an individual or company. Companies don't have greater rights than citizens or subjects in this respect.